Subject:
|
Re: Block user X from replying to a message by user Y
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 May 2002 02:24:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1818 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Frank Filz writes:
> LUGNET Admin wrote:
> > [...]
> > New! LUGNET "Bickering Prevention" Policy
> > [...]
I should specify that when I said "time out" I mean shutting off their
posting privelages temporarily. Also, I'm careful to use the word
'bickering' over 'arguing' because arguments can be constructive and provide
a variety of views on an issue.
> > there'll be times when I'll miss some fight or another and maybe
> > it seems "unfair" to certain people. But... (sorry) that's just too bad.
> > [...]
>
> I think that sounds good. I don't think you'll miss anything significant
> since what is a concern is things which start to brew out of control,
> and those get noticed
Right. And I think it's an easy task for a couple volunteers, to keep an eye
out for me.[1]
It's funny, tonight, after work my SO grumbled, "Larry and that other guy
..Scott? are at it again." I was like, "Really?! Where?" I had been in
admin.suggestions writing for this thread, and totally missed it. He said,
"Well, you know what happened today, right?" as if it were a disaster on CNN.
I keep a ticker open on my desktop to watch for certain things. As you know,
often the trouble is in a thread which still has whatever innocent name it
started with. But I've come to recognize when a thread is progressing "too
fast," and between only a few people (ping-ponging), and with certain
people's names attached.
> (and if you have a semi-formal policy, you'll get
> helpful e-mails if you aren't noticing).
exactly. For the general populous, I started writing a "During an
emergency, follow these steps: 1. blah, blah" kinda thing. It suggests what
you can do when you see bickering going on. Notifying me is on the list,
while 'Joining in' is not.
> The situation where someone
> says something which gets a little under someone's skin, and they
> make a snippy remark, and then the original poster apologizes or just
> keeps their trap shut, and the whole thing dies, those are mostly OK.
yeah, but I hope our policy could discourage that too, as posters would fear
an escallation. It's pretty sad that people can't just be kind.. you know,
living by that whole "Golden Rule" thing? :-\ oh well.
it seems likely that we'd have to turn off most, or all, parties involved -
so as to head-off "rubbing it in" or us looking guilty of favoritism.
One more thing... I think when someone is put in a time-out, I would make a
follow-up post on their behalf, with an announcement of what was done. That
could cut down on the "But I didn't get a chance to defend myself!" or,
"Great! now I look like a wuss." It would also show off to the community
what won't be tolerated. And it delivers some "humiliation before one's peers."
-Suz
[1] But I'd never want to depend on them to catch every instance. That's one
reason I don't favor the "3 strikes - you're out" policy. It would be
impossible to inforce perfectly, yet it would advertise fairness.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
